Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 1 of 38
Native Vegetation Clearance
Springwood Development Village 3
Data Report
Clearance under the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017
31 August 2020
Prepared by NVC Accredited Consultant M. Laws (EBS Ecology)
Page 2 of 38
Native Vegetation Clearance Springwood Development Village 3 Data
Report
31 August 2020
Version F2
Prepared by EBS Ecology for Springwood Development Nominees Pty Ltd
Document Control
Revision No. Date issued Authors Reviewed by Date Reviewed Revision type
D1 14/08/2020 M. Laws (NVC Accredited
Consultant) EBS Ecology 14/04/2020 Draft 1
F1 17/08/2020 M. Laws Alison Derry 17/04/2020 Final 1
F2 31/08/2018 M. Laws Final 2
Distribution of Copies
Revision No. Date issued Media Issued to
F1 17/08/2020 Electronic Anthony Andolfatto, Springwood Development Nominees Pty Ltd
F2 31/08/2018 Electronic Anthony Andolfatto, Springwood Development Nominees Pty Ltd
EBS Ecology Project Number: E90301A
COPYRIGHT: Use or copying of this document in whole or in part (including photographs) without the written permission of EBS
Ecology’s client and EBS Ecology constitutes an infringement of copyright.
LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of EBS Ecology’s client, and is subject to and
issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between EBS Ecology and its client. EBS Ecology accepts no liability or
responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.
CITATION: EBS Ecology (2020) Native Vegetation Clearance Springwood Development Stage 3 Data Report. Report to Springwood
Development Nominees Pty Ltd. EBS Ecology, Adelaide.
Cover photograph: Musk Lorikeet (Glossopsitta concinna) utilising a scattered tree hollow within the Project Area.
EBS Ecology
2/125 Hayward Avenue
Torrensville, South Australia 5031
t: 08 7127 5607
http://www.ebsecology.com.au
email: [email protected]
Page 3 of 38
Glossary and abbreviations
BDBSA Biological Database of South Australia (maintained by DEW)
DAWE Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (Commonwealth)
DEW Department for Environment and Water (South Australia)
EBS Environment and Biodiversity Services Pty Ltd (trading as EBS Ecology)
EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
ha Hectare(s)
IBRA Interim Biogeographical Regionalisation of Australia
km Kilometre(s)
NatureMaps Initiative of DEW that provides a common access point to maps and geographic information about
South Australia's natural resources in an interactive online mapping format
NPW Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972
NV Act Native Vegetation Act 1991
NVC Native Vegetation Council
PMST Protected Matters Search Tool (under the EPBC Act; maintained by DAWE)
Project Springwood Development Village 3
Project Area 6.909 ha area encompassing the Springwood Development Village 3
SA South Australia(n)
Search Area 5 km buffer of the Project Area considered in the desktop assessment database searches
SEB Significant Environmental Benefit
sp. Species
spp. Species (plural)
Springwood Springwood Development Nominees Pty Ltd
ssp. Sub-species
STAM Scattered Tree Assessment Method
TEC Threatened Ecological Community
var. Variety (a taxonomic rank below that of species and subspecies, but above that of form)
Page 4 of 38
Table of contents
1. Application information
2. Purpose of clearance
2.1 Description
2.2 Background
2.3 General location map
2.4 Details of the proposal
2.5 Approvals required or obtained
2.6 Native Vegetation Regulation
2.7 Development Application information (if applicable)
3. Method
3.1 Desktop assessment
3.2 Flora assessment
3.3 Fauna assessment
4. Assessment outcomes
4.1 Vegetation assessment
4.2 Threatened species assessment
4.3 Cumulative impacts
4.4 Addressing the Mitigation Hierarchy
4.5 Principles of Clearance (Schedule 1, Native Vegetation Act 1991)
4.6 Risk assessment
4.7 NVC guidelines
5. Clearance summary
6. Significant Environmental Benefit
7. References
8. Appendices and Attachments
Page 5 of 38
1. Application information Table 1. Application details.
Applicant: Springwood Development Nominees Pty Ltd
Key contact: Anthony Andolfatto | Senior Development Manager
Landowners: Springwood Development and Ames, Bruggerman & Priestley (see Attachment 1 –
Springwood Land Tenure Plan).
Site Address: Between Bosley Way and Balmoral Track, Gawler East SA 5118
Local Government
Area: Gawler Hundred: Barossa (105200)
Title ID: CT/6238/923,
CT/6162/334 Parcel ID
D124197 Q7048,
D28814 A4
Table 2. Summary of the proposed clearance.
Purpose of clearance Clearance required for the construction of a residential subdivision.
Native Vegetation
Regulation Regulation 12(35) – Residential subdivision
Description of the
vegetation under application
• 25 large Eucalyptus porosa (Mallee Box) trees.
• 2 medium Eucalyptus porosa (Mallee Box) trees.
Total proposed clearance -
area (ha) and number of
trees
27 scattered trees are proposed to be cleared.
Level of clearance
Level 4 (>20 trees, Total Biodiversity Score of <250, seriously at variance with
Principle of Clearance(b) – wildlife habitat)
The NVC should consider the following moderating factors to determine if the
clearance is seriously at variance or at variance with Principle of Clearance(b):
Is the clearance likely to:
• Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population;
• Reduce the area of occupancy of the species;
• Fragment an existing population into two or more populations;
• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species;
• Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of
habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline;
• Result in invasive species that are harmful to a threatened species becoming
established in the threatened species habitat; and
• Interfere with the recovery of the species.
Is Eucalyptus porosa (Mallee Box) underrepresented within the IBRA
Environmental Association or IBRA Subregion.
Overlay (Planning and
Design Code) Native Vegetation Overlay
Page 6 of 38
Mitigation hierarchy
Avoid
Areas of the highest density trees are of particularly high value with many having
large hollows and provide other habitat values such as food and roosting
resources. Springwood has avoided the areas of highest vegetation cover where
practical and maintains over 70 ha of open space.
Minimise
Prior to development commencing, a Vegetation Management Plan and a
Construction Environmental Management Plan will be prepared so as to guide
the future development of the site. Reserves have been incorporated into the
strategic design where remnant trees are present where possible in a bid to
reduce SEB requirements while also improving the amenity value of the
development.
Rehabilitate / restore
The project engineers have included a preliminary stormwater treatment strategy
for the site. This considers the drainage for the Springwood Development and
includes elements such as macrophyte beds, shallow wetland ponds and
ecological sponges / reed beds. Kellogg Brown and Root who undertook
ecological assessments of the entire project area between 2008 and 2010,
provided input into the most suitable sites and has assisted in the initial
stormwater treatment planning. The wetland systems and ponds along the
eastern section of the Springwood Creek avoids the important reptile habitat
areas, all of the remnant trees and will allow for development of biologically
productive riparian habitats in what is currently a weed infested gully.
SEB Offset proposal Payment of $102,907.24 (includes administration fee of $5,364.83)
Page 7 of 38
2. Purpose of clearance 2.1 Description
EBS Ecology (EBS) was engaged by Springwood Development Nominees Pty Ltd (Springwood) to undertake a native
vegetation clearance assessment for Village 3 of the Springwood Development (the Project), a residential subdivision
in Gawler East creating an additional 1,201 allotments (across 10 villages).
The Project involves the clearance of 27 scattered Eucalyptus porosa (Mallee Box) trees.
Objectives
The objectives of the native vegetation clearance assessment were to:
• Undertake a desktop assessment of the likelihood of occurrence and status of threatened flora and fauna
protected under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC
Act) and State National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act);
• Assess native vegetation within the Project Area for clearance using the Native Vegetation Council (NVC)
endorsed Scattered Tree Assessment Method (STAM); and
• Calculate the Significant Environmental Benefit (SEB) offset requirements based on the impact footprint.
2.2 Background
Previous surveys
The entire Springwood Development site was first assessed in November 2008 and then seasonally through to 2010
by Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) on behalf of Delfin Lend Lease. These surveys involved rigorous ecological
assessments of the area utilising both flora and fauna survey methods (KBR 2010; Attachment 2). This included the
use of pitfall trapping to analyse inconspicuous species such as small reptiles and mammals. A number of ecological
constraints were identified within this report and this directed the future planning of the Springwood Development
with a view to avoiding key areas where possible.
In March 2019, EBS was engaged by Arcadian Property to undertake a review of the KBR report and Springwood
Development site to determine if the ecological conditions present at the time of the 2008–2010 surveys and
identified species of conservation significance were still relevant to the current Springwood Masterplan (EBS 2019;
Attachment 3).
EBS (2019) undertook a desktop assessment involving searching Commonwealth and State databases to identify
threatened species potentially occurring or known from the proposed Springwood Development site, as well as
relevant matters of national environmental significance and other matters protected under the EPBC Act and the
NPW Act. A review of other available background information sources such as NatureMaps was also conducted. EBS
also undertook a field survey in March 2019, which largely focussed on ground-truthing the ecological
values/constraints as presented in KBR (2010) and included a roaming fauna survey.
The reports by KBR (2010) and EBS (2019) should be read in conjunction with this Native Vegetation Clearance Data
report for detailed information of the flora, fauna and ecological communities within the entire Springwood
Development site.
Page 8 of 38
Previous and future villages of the development
The Springwood Development includes a total 11 villages plus the Village Centre (see Attachment 4 – Springwood
Village Staging Plan). Works have been completed in the majority of Village 1 in the northeast corner of the
Springwood Development site, which was devoid of native vegetation having been previously used for cropping (see
Figure 7.5 Native Vegetation Areas in KBR (2010)). Between the 11 villages, approximately 74 hectares (ha) of open
space has been incorporated into the design, equating to 34% of the overall Springwood Development site
(Attachment 4).
Additional to the impacts to native vegetation within Village 3, scattered Eucalyptus porosa (Mallee Box) trees and/or
Eucalyptus porosa Open Woodland will be impacted within Village 5. Furthermore, several planted trees, including
regulated and significant trees will be impacted by the development, mainly within Villages 2, 4, 7 and 8 (Attachment
4). Overall, removal of 47 regulated and 40 significant trees is required, including one regulated and nine significant
within Village 3.
Two small areas (approximately 1.4 ha) of critically endangered Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland of South
Australia EPBC Act Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) was identified along the unnamed creek within the
Springwood Development site by KBR (2010; see Figure 7.1 Matters of National Environmental Significance). At the
time of the survey, the TEC was in moderate to good condition, despite having been exposed to excessive grazing
and severe trampling-compaction pressure by livestock and grazing by rabbits in the past. Although the occurrence
had moderate to heavy weed infestations, the native flora species diversity was considered to be reasonable with 16
species recorded and more expected following the cessation of stock grazing (KBR 2010). EBS (2019) confirmed the
TEC and still be present and in relatively good condition in terms of tussock density and size. It was not possible to
make an accurate assessment as the herbaceous species diversity during the March 2019 survey due to very poor
conditions from a seasonal perspective. A road is proposed between Villages 8 and 9 that will impact this TEC
(Attachment 4).
Current and surrounding land use
The current land use of the Springwood Development site is primarily farmland. There is also a disused sand quarry,
which occupies 61.71 ha of the northwest of the site, and a tributary of the South Para River. The surrounding land
consists of residential and farmland.
Administrative boundaries
The Springwood Development site falls within the Gawler and Barossa Local Government Areas, Northern and Yorke
Landscape Region, Barossa Hundreds and Adelaide County.
Bioregions
The Interim Biogeographical Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) identifies geographically distinct bioregions based on
common climate, geology, landform, native vegetation and species information. The bioregions are further refined
into subregions and environmental associations. The Project Area is located in the Flinders Lofty Block IBRA
Bioregion, Mount Lofty Ranges IBRA Subregion and Rosedale IBRA Environmental Association.
Approximately 15% (46,342 ha) of the Mount Lofty Ranges IBRA Subregion and approximately 5% (3,089 ha) of the
Rosedale IBRA Environmental Association is mapped as remnant vegetation. Of this, 27% (12,706 ha) and 11%
(331 ha) is formerly conserved and protected, respectively.
2.3 General location map
The location of Springwood Development Village 3 Project Area is display in Figure 1. The Project Area covers a total
area of 6.909 ha, which includes 6.424 ha of allotments and 0.485 ha of areas that will be impacted by earthworks.
The Project Area is approximately 3 kilometres (km) east of Gawler.
Page 9 of 38
2.4 Details of the proposal
The layout of the entire Springwood Development is illustrated in Figure 2. The Springwood Village Staging Plan is
provided in Attachment 4. The Springwood Tree Retention Plan in provided in Attachment 5. The Springwood Village
3 Design Plans are provided in Attachment 6.
Page 10 of 38
Figure 1. Location of the Springwood Development Stage 3 Project Area.
Page 11 of 38
Figure 2. The entire proposed Springwood Development.
Page 12 of 38
2.5 Approvals required or obtained
Approval obtained
The following approval has been obtained:
• Regulation 42 under the Development Act 1993 – Development Application numbers 490/D026/19 and
960/D025/19, Development Approval granted 13 February 2020 (Attachment 7).
The Development Approvals includes consent to clear 47 regulated and 40 significant trees (one regulated and nine
significant within Village 3). The regulated and significant trees within Village 3 are also indigenous, remnant native
trees defined as ‘Native Vegetation’ under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 (NV Act). Therefore, these trees may not be
cleared without the consent of the NVC under the NV Act. Subregulation 5 of the Development Regulations
describes the circumstances in which the Regulated and Significant tree provisions would not apply, including to a
tree that may not be cleared without the consent of the NVC under the NV Act. Therefore, regulated and significant
tree legislation does not apply to the trees within the Village 3 Project Area, which are considered in this Native
Vegetation Clearance Application.
Approvals required
The following approvals are/may be required:
• Referral under the EPBC Act due to the proposed impact to the Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland of
South Australia TEC within the Springwood Development site (KBR 2010; EBS 2019); and
• Springwood have statutory obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988, Landscape South Australia Act
2019 and NV Act.
2.6 Native Vegetation Regulation
An assessment against the Principles of Clearance under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 is not required as the
clearance associated with the Project is in accordance with Division 5 of the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017,
which allows for the clearance of native vegetation in relation to specific activities as set out in Schedule 1, Parts 4, 5
or 6 of the Regulations. The Project is considered to be permitted under the following regulation:
Regulation 12(35)—Residential subdivision
(1) Clearance of vegetation in connection with the division of land for use for residential purposes (including
clearance for the construction of roads and other infrastructure), provided that—
(a) any development authorisation for the division of the land and for the use of the land for
residential purposes required by or under the Development Act 1993 has been obtained; and
(b) the [Native Vegetation] Council has been given written notification of the full extent of the
clearance expected to occur in connection with the division of the land.
(2) Subclause (1) does not apply to—
(a) clearance of vegetation established in accordance with a condition of a consent for clearance of
vegetation; or
(b) clearance that would be contrary to—
(i) a condition of a consent for clearance of vegetation; or
(ii) a condition imposed in connection with clearance of vegetation permitted under these
[native vegetation] regulations; or
Page 13 of 38
(iii) a condition in respect of clearance permitted under the revoked [native vegetation]
regulations.
2.7 Development Application information (if applicable)
The Springwood Development was granted Development Approval under Regulation 42 under the Development Act
1993 for Development Application numbers 490/D025/19 and 960/D026/19 on 13 February 2020 (Attachment 7).
The Springwood Development falls within the Residential (Gawler East) Zone and Native Vegetation Overlay. The
relevant Subzone is not yet known as the Gawler Local Government Area is part of Phase Three of the Planning
Reform Implementation, which is set to be implemented in late 2020.
Page 14 of 38
3. Method 3.1 Desktop assessment
A desktop assessment was undertaken to determine the potential for any threatened flora and fauna species, and
TECs (both Commonwealth and State listed) to occur within the Project Area. This was achieved by undertaking
database searches using a 5 km buffer of the Project Area (Search Area).
PMST report
A Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) report was generated on 10 August 2020 to identify nationally threatened
flora and fauna, and migratory species under the EPBC Act relevant to the Project Area (DAWE 2020). Only species
and TECs identified in the PMST report that are likely or known to occur within the Search Area were assessed for
their likelihood of occurrence within the Project Area.
BDBSA data extract
A data extract from the Biological Database of South Australia (BDBSA) was obtained from NatureMaps to identify
flora and fauna species that have been recorded within 5 km of the Project Area (DEW 2020; data extracted 10
August 2020). The BDBSA is comprised of an integrated collection of species records from the South Australian
Museum, conservation organisations, private consultancies, Birds SA, Birdlife Australia and the Australasian Wader
Study Group, which meet the SA Department for Environment and Water’s (DEW) standards for data quality, integrity
and maintenance. Only species with records since 1995 and within 1 km spatial reliability (reliable records) were
assessed for their likelihood of occurrence.
3.2 Flora assessment
The flora assessment was undertaken by NVC Accredited Consultant Mark Laws on 29 July 2020 in accordance with
the Scattered Tree Assessment Method (STAM) (NVC 2020).
The STAM is derived from the Scattered Tree Clearance Assessment in South Australia: Streamlining, Guidelines for
Assessment and Rural Industry Extension report (Cutten and Hodder 2002). The STAM is suitable for assessing
scattered trees in the following instances:
• Individual scattered trees (i.e. canopy does not overlap). The spatial distribution of trees may vary from
approaching what would be considered their original distribution (pre-European) through to single isolated
trees in the middle of a paddock; or
• Dead trees (when a dead tree is considered native vegetation); or
• Clumps of trees (contiguous overlapping canopies) if the clump is small (approximately <0.1 ha); and
• For both scattered trees and clumps:
o The ground layer comprises wholly or largely of introduced species;
o Some scattered colonising native species may be present, but represent <5% of the ground cover;
and
o The area around the trees consists of introduced pasture or crops.
Details of the scattered tree Point Scoring System are outlined in the Scattered Tree Assessment Manual (NVC 2020).
The numbers of uncommon and threatened scattered tree using fauna species entered into the Scattered Tree
Scoresheet were calculated by cross-referring the BDBSA data extract (see Section 3.1) and the lists of scattered tree
using fauna in the Scattered Tree Assessment Manual (NVC 2020). The resource use of each species identified was
considered when determining each tree’s suitability for threatened fauna species (e.g. species that only use hollows in
scattered trees were only assigned to scattered trees containing hollows).
Page 15 of 38
3.3 Fauna assessment
All native and exotic fauna species opportunistically encountered (directly observed, or tracks, scats, burrows, nests
and other signs of presence) during the native vegetation clearance assessment were recorded. Potential fauna
refuge sites, such as hollows, rock crevices and creek lines were noted as an indication of availability of suitable
habitat. Particular attention was paid to identifying habitat for threatened species. For each opportunistic fauna
observation, the species, number of individuals, GPS location, detection methodology (sight, sound or sign) and
habitat were recorded.
KBR (2010) recorded opportunistic fauna observations (including tracks, scats, burrows, nests and other signs of
presence) and undertook active searching and pitfall trapping within the Springwood Development site. Active
searching generally involved rock-turning, litter raking and excavating fresh burrows. A total of eight pitfall trap lines,
each with five pitfall buckets were established in Mallee Box Mature Open Woodland (six sites) and Anthropogenic
Grassland with shallow strata and surface rock scatter suitable for reptiles (two sites). The fauna assessment methods
are detailed further in Attachment 2 (KBR 2010).
EBS (2019) recorded opportunistic fauna observations (including tracks, scats, burrows, nests and other signs of
presence).
Page 16 of 38
4. Assessment outcomes 4.1 Vegetation assessment
General description of the vegetation, the site and matters of significance
The Project Area was characterised by low undulating hills, sloping south from a crest in the north of the Project Area.
The upper slopes were moderately inclined and waned into gently inclined lower slopes, with an open depression
beyond the southern extent of the Project Area. Scattered rock outcrops were present with slight outcrop exposure.
The Project Area has largely been subject to complete clearing and modification into an improved pasture, with a
dense ground cover dominated by introduced grasses and herbs including Dactylis glomerata (Cocksfoot), Phalaris
aquatica (Phalaris), Oxalis pes-caprae (Soursob) and the declared Echium plantagineum (Salvation Jane). Various
broadleaf and woody weed species were also scattered throughout the Project Area, including the declared Cynara
cardunculus (Artichoke Thistle), Lycium ferocissimum (African Boxthorn) and Olea europaea (Olive).
A total of 27 native scattered Eucalyptus porosa (Mallee Box) trees were assessed for clearance within the Project
Area. The majority of these trees were established and of moderate to good vigour, with only Tree 11 still
establishing and two Over Mature trees (5 and 17) decreasing in vigour (Table 3). No native species were observed
beneath any of the scattered trees. A small number of scattered Eucalyptus porosa trees occurring within the Project
Area were not assessed for clearance as they were deemed to be planted based on historic satellite imagery and their
location and growth habit.
Eucalyptus porosa Open Woodland occurred to the southwest of the Project Area. Similar to the scattered trees
assessed within the Project Area, no native understorey was present in this woodland. Indeed, only one native shrub
recorded within the Springwood Development site by KBR (2010).
The Scattered Tree Assessment Scoresheet is provided in Attachment 8.
Site map showing areas of proposed impact
The scattered trees proposed to be cleared are mapped in Figure 3.
Photo log
Photos of each of the scattered trees proposed to be cleared are provided in Appendix 1.
Table 3. Details of the scattered trees proposed to be impacted. Tree age classes described in table footer.
Tree
# Tree spp.
No.
of
trees
Height
(m) Hollows
Diameter
(cm)
Canopy
dieback
(%)
Total
Biodiversity
Score
General comments
1 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 12.8
2 small,
1 large 70 5 8.16
Late Mature. Relatively high
habitat value.
2 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 12.8
1 small,
2 large 64 30 6.80
Mature. Relatively high habitat
value.
3 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 6.8 26 5 1.99
Early Mature. Relatively low
habitat value.
4 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 11.6
4 small,
3 medium 106 5 9.58
Late Mature. Relatively high
habitat value.
5 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 10.6
10 small,
1 large 94 70 6.44
Over Mature. Relatively high
habitat value.
6 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 10.2
8 small,
1 large 132 20 9.69
Late Mature. Relatively high
habitat value.
Page 17 of 38
Tree
# Tree spp.
No.
of
trees
Height
(m) Hollows
Diameter
(cm)
Canopy
dieback
(%)
Total
Biodiversity
Score
General comments
7 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 9.4
4 small,
1 large 126 40 8.56
Late Mature. Relatively high
habitat value.
8 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 9.6
5 small,
1 medium,
1 large
120 5 10.04 Mature. Relatively high habitat
value.
9 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 8.8 47 5 4.40
Early Mature. Relatively low
habitat value.
10 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 13.2
3 small,
2 medium,
2 large
158 20 10.57 Mature. Relatively high habitat
value.
11 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 5.8 7 10 0.54
Young. Relatively low habitat
value.
12 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 6.8 27 5 2.03
Early Mature. Relatively low
habitat value.
13 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 6.7 23 10 1.33
Early Mature. Relatively low
habitat value.
14 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 9.6 44 5 4.42
Early Mature. Relatively low
habitat value.
15 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 10.8 69 5 6.48
Early Mature. Relatively low
habitat value.
16 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 10.6 29 10 3.42
Early Mature. Relatively low
habitat value.
17 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 10.2
3 small,
1 large 64 95 3.81
Over Mature. Relatively high
habitat value.
18 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 13.3
1 small,
2 medium,
2 large
125 10 9.95 Late Mature. Relatively high
habitat value.
19 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 14.8
1 small,
1 medium,
4 large
91 20 8.41 Mature. Relatively high habitat
value.
20 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 9.2 2 medium 90 20 8.38
Late Mature. Relatively high
habitat value.
21 Eucalyptus
porosa 1 14.2
2 small,
6 medium,
3 large
90 30 7.94 Mature. Relatively high habitat
value.
A Eucalyptus
porosa 6 8.4 23 10 20.23
Early Mature. Relatively low
habitat value.
Hollows: Small = <5 cm, Medium = 5-15 cm, Large = >15 cm.
Tree age classes: Young = establishing, usually with good vigour.
Early Mature = established, usually vigorous, increasing in height.
Mature = fully established, around half of life expectancy, generally good vigour, full height with crown still spreading.
Late Mature = moderate vigour, no additional height expected, growth rate slowing.
Over Mature = approaching end of life expectancy, vigour decreasing.
Page 18 of 38
Figure 3. Scattered trees protected under the NV Act proposed to be cleared.
Page 19 of 38
4.2 Threatened species assessment
Species observed on site, or recorded within 5 km of the Project Area since 1995, or the vegetation is
considered to provide suitable habitat
A total of 17 bird species were recorded using the scattered trees during the current fauna assessment (Appendix 2).
This include 15 native and two introduced bird species. No threatened species were recorded during the current
fauna assessment.
The habitat preferences and likelihood of occurrence within the Project Area of each threatened species identified in
the desktop assessment are outlined in Table 4. The fauna observations made by KBR (2010) and EBS (2019) were
considered in the threatened species assessment. See Attachments 2 and 3 for the results of these surveys,
respectively.
The criteria for the likelihood of occurrence of threatened species within the Project Area are described in Table 5.
No threatened flora species identified in the desktop assessment were considered likely to occur within the Project
Area.
Seven and five threatened fauna species identified in the desktop assessment were considered highly likely and likely
to occur within the Project Area, respectively (Table 4).
Uncommon and threatened scattered tree using fauna species entered into the Scattered Tree Scoresheet are
outlined in Appendix 3. The NVC will need to review this list and update the Scattered Tree Scoresheet accordingly.
Table 4. Likelihood of occurrence of threatened species identified in the desktop assessment. Likelihood of use for habitat
specifically for Stage 3 of the development. The data source and threat levels are described in the table footer.
Species (common name) NPW
Act
EPBC
Act
Data
source
Date of
last
record
Species known
habitat preferences
Likelihood of use for
habitat – Comments
Flora
Acacia iteaphylla
(Flinders Ranges Wattle) R 2 2012
Hillsides amongst
rocky outcrops, or
valleys along rocky
creek banks.
Unlikely – no native
shrub layer recorded
by KBR (2010).
Acacia pendula
(Weeping Myall) V 2 2012
Floodplains in fertile
alluvial clay.
Unlikely – no native
shrub layer recorded
by KBR (2010).
Acacia trineura
(Three-nerve Wattle) E 2 2012
Shallow dark cracking
clays.
Unlikely – no native
shrub layer recorded
by KBR (2010).
Austrostipa densiflora
(Fox-tail Spear-grass) R 2 2005
Sandy soils or rich soil
in rocky places.
Unlikely – degraded,
weed dominated
understorey.
Austrostipa gibbosa
(Swollen Spear-grass) R 2 2011
Rich loamy soils along
creeks or other
seasonally wet areas.
Unlikely – degraded,
weed dominated
understorey.
Austrostipa multispiculis
(Many-flowered Spear-grass) R 2 2018
Eucalypt woodlands
along creek lines and
in grassland.
Unlikely – degraded,
weed dominated
understorey.
Bothriochloa macra
(Red-leg Grass) R 2 2016
Open grassland or
grassy woodland,
often recorded in
disturbed sites.
Possible – recent
record and suitable
habitat.
Page 20 of 38
Species (common name) NPW
Act
EPBC
Act
Data
source
Date of
last
record
Species known
habitat preferences
Likelihood of use for
habitat – Comments
Caladenia argocalla
(White-beauty Spider-orchid) EN 1
Open grassy
forests/woodlands.
Unlikely – degraded,
weed dominated
understorey.
Caladenia rigida
(Stiff White Spider-orchid) EN 1
Open Eucalypt forests
over open low shrubs
and sedges.
Unlikely – degraded,
weed dominated
understorey.
Caladenia tensa
(Greencomb Spider-orchid) EN 1
Open woodland,
Mallee and heath with
rock outcrops.
Unlikely – degraded,
weed dominated
understorey.
Cladium procerum
(Leafy Twig-rush) R 2 2018
Swampland and lake
margins.
Unlikely – no suitable
habitat.
Corybas dentatus
(Toothed Helmet-orchid) VU
Pink Gum, Brown
Stringybark or
Southern Cypress
Pine woodland.
Unlikely – no suitable
habitat.
Dianella longifolia var. grandis
(Pale Flax-lily) R 2 2018
Eucalypt grassy
woodlands.
Unlikely – degraded,
weed dominated
understorey.
Eucalyptus fasciculosa
(Pink Gum) R 2 1999
Well-drained sandy
soils of low fertility.
Unlikely – not
recorded by KBR
(2010).
Maireana rohrlachii
(Rohrlach’s Bluebush) R 2 2013
Saline or sandy loam
soils rich in gypsum;
seasonally wet areas.
Unlikely – no native
shrub layer recorded
by KBR (2010).
Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa
(Silver Daisy-bush) V VU 1, 2 2015
Mallee, woodland,
forest and low heath.
Unlikely – no native
shrub layer recorded
by KBR (2010).
Prasophyllum pallidum
(Pale Leek-orchid) VU 1
Well-grassed open
forests.
Unlikely – degraded,
weed dominated
understorey.
Prasophyllum pruinosum
(Plum Leek-orchid) EN 1
Pink Gum, SA Blue
Gum and Southern
Cypress Pine open
woodland.
Unlikely – degraded,
weed dominated
understorey.
Ptilotus angustifolius
(Narrow-leaf Yellow-tails) E 2 2012
Rocky slopes/hills in
Grey Box woodlands.
Unlikely – degraded,
weed dominated
understorey, no Grey
Box.
Sclerolaena muricata var. villosa
(Five-spine Bindyi) R 2 2018
Heavier soils,
especially in
overgrazed areas.
Unlikely – no suitable
habitat, no native
shrub layer recorded
by KBR (2010).
Birds
Apus pacificus pacificus (Pacific
Swift) MI 1
Aerial, over inland
plains to coastal
areas, sometimes over
forests and cities.
Possible (Fly-over) –
almost exclusively
aerial in Australia.
Page 21 of 38
Species (common name) NPW
Act
EPBC
Act
Data
source
Date of
last
record
Species known
habitat preferences
Likelihood of use for
habitat – Comments
Botaurus poiciloptilus (Australasian
Bittern) EN 1
Permanent freshwater
wetlands with tall,
dense vegetation.
Unlikely – no suitable
habitat.
Calidris ferruginea (Curlew
Sandpiper)
CE,
MI 1
Tidal mudflats,
saltmarsh and
wetlands.
Unlikely – no suitable
habitat.
Corcorax melanorhamphos (White-
winged Chough) R 2, 3 2019
Open forests and
woodlands. Prefer
wetter areas with leaf-
litter for feeding and
mud for nest building.
Highly Likely – very
recent record, suitable
habitat and recorded
by KBR (2010).
Coturnix ypsilophora australis
(Brown Quail) V 2 2019
Rank grasses near
wetlands, drains,
green pastures and
stubbles.
Highly Likely – very
recent record and
suitable habitat.
Falco hypoleucos (Grey Falcon) VU 1
Lightly treed inland
plains, gibber,
pastoral areas, and
timbered
watercourses.
Unlikely –
uncommon, usually
restricted to arid and
semi-arid regions.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine Falcon) R 3
Cliffs, gorges,
timbered
watercourses,
wetlands, plains, open
woodlands and
manmade structures.
Likely – suitable
habitat and recorded
by KBR (2010) in
quarry area.
Falcunculus frontatus frontatus
(Eastern Shriketit) R 2 2013
Eucalypt
forests/woodlands
and Red Gums on
watercourses, also
public green spaces.
Likely – recent record
and suitable habitat.
Gallinago hardwickii (Latham’s
Snipe) R MI 2 2008
Open freshwater
wetlands with low,
dense vegetation.
Unlikely – no suitable
habitat.
Hieraaetus morphnoides (Little
Eagle) V 2 2018
Plains, foothills, open
forests, woodlands
and Red Gums on
watercourses.
Likely – recent record
and suitable habitat,
but uncommon.
Myiagra inquieta (Restless
Flycatcher) R 2 2015
Open forests,
woodlands, Red Gums
near water and public
green spaces.
Likely – recent record
and suitable habitat.
Neophema elegans elegans
(Elegant Parrot) R 2, 3 2018
Open forests,
woodlands, Mallee,
Mulga, Red Gums on
watercourses and
saltbush.
Highly Likely – very
recent record, suitable
habitat and recorded
by KBR (2010).
Parvipsitta pusilla (Little Lorikeet) E 2 2012 Forests, woodlands,
large scattered trees,
street trees and
Likely – recent record
and suitable habitat.
Page 22 of 38
Species (common name) NPW
Act
EPBC
Act
Data
source
Date of
last
record
Species known
habitat preferences
Likelihood of use for
habitat – Comments
timbered
watercourses.
Petroica phoenicea (Flame Robin) V 2 2018
Forests, woodlands,
scrubs, paddocks and
public green spaces.
Highly Likely – very
recent record and
suitable habitat.
Plegadis falcinellus (Glossy Ibis) R 2 2014
Well vegetated
wetlands and wet
pastures, occasionally
dry grasslands.
Possible – recent
record and marginal
habitat.
Rostratula australis (Australian
Painted Snipe) EN 1
Well vegetated
shallows/edges of
wetlands, dams and
sewage ponds, wet
pastures and marshy
areas.
Unlikely – no suitable
habitat.
Stagonopleura guttata (Diamond
Firetail) V 2 2019
Open Eucalypt
forests/woodlands,
Red Gums, Mallee
and public green
spaces.
Highly Likely – very
recent record and
suitable habitat.
Tringa nebularia (Common
Greenshank) MI 1
Mudflats, estuaries,
saltmarshes, wetlands
and claypans.
Unlikely – no suitable
habitat.
Mammals
Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-
headed Flying-fox) R VU 1, 2 2020
Utilises open forests,
woodlands, orchids
and street trees.
Eucalypt blossoms are
a primary food
source.
Highly Likely – very
recent record and
suitable habitat.
Trichosurus vulpecula (Common
Brushtail Possum) R 2, 3 2019
Open Eucalypt
forests/woodlands.
Dens in tree hollows.
Adapted well to
urban landscapes.
Highly Likely – very
recent record, suitable
habitat and recorded
by KBR (2010).
Reptiles
Aprasia pseudopulchella (Flinders
Ranges Worm-lizard) V VU 1, 3
Open woodland,
native tussock
grassland, riparian
habitats and rocky
isolates with litter and
surface rocks.
Possible – although
observed by KBR
during earlier survey
(KBR 2010), there is
marginal habitat in
the Stage 3 Project
Area.
Source: 1 = PMST, 2 = NatureMaps, 3 = KBR (2010)
NPW Act: E= Endangered, V = Vulnerable, R= Rare
EPBC Act: Ex = Extinct, CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable
Page 23 of 38
Table 5. Criteria for the likelihood of occurrence of threatened species within the Project Area.
Likelihood Criteria
Highly
Likely/Known
Recorded in the last 10 years, the species does not have highly specific niche requirements, the habitat is
present and falls within the known range of the species distribution or;
The species was recorded as part of field surveys.
Likely Recorded within the previous 20 years, the area falls within the known distribution of the species and the
area provides habitat or feeding resources for the species.
Possible
Recorded within the previous 20 years, the area falls inside the known distribution of the species, but the
area provide limited habitat or feeding resources for the species.
Recorded within 20 -40 years, survey effort is considered adequate, habitat and feeding resources present,
and species of similar habitat needs have been recorded in the area.
Unlikely
Recorded within the previous 20 years, but the area provide no habitat or feeding resources for the species,
including perching, roosting or nesting opportunities, corridor for movement or shelter.
Recorded within 20 -40 years; however, suitable habitat does not occur, and species of similar habitat
requirements have not been recorded in the area.
No records despite adequate survey effort.
4.3 Cumulative impacts
When exercising a power or making a decision under Division 5 of the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017, the NVC
must consider the potential cumulative impact, both direct and indirect, that is reasonably likely to result from a
proposed clearance activity.
The direct impact of the Project is the removal of 27 native Eucalyptus porosa (Mallee Box) scattered trees. All access,
common services and earthworks fall within the Project Area (Figure 3), and each allotment will be devoid of
vegetation so no subsequent clearance will be required for buildings, dwellings, surrounding buildings and dwellings,
vehicle access, ancillary structures and fire protection.
It is possible that impact to the three trees (1–2) along Balmoral Track in the southeast of the Project Area can be
avoided or minimised. These trees have been included in the assessment as a Colorbond fence is proposed along the
back of the allotments in the Project Area, which will likely impact these trees. If impact to these trees can be avoided
or minimised, the SEB will need to be updated accordingly.
Potential indirect impacts of the Project include:
• Dust generation, which may impact surrounding vegetation;
• Noise generation, which may impact fauna species in the area; and
• Scattered Eucalyptus porosa (Mallee Box) trees and/or Eucalyptus porosa Open Woodland will be impacted
within Village 5. Furthermore, several planted trees, including regulated and significant trees will be impacted
by the development, mainly within Villages 2, 4, 7 and 8 (Attachment 4). Overall, removal of 47 regulated and
40 significant trees is required, including one regulated and nine significant within Village 3.
It is unlikely that the Project and the entire Springwood Development will alter the hydrology (e.g. raised or lowered
water table, flooding, impounding water or reduced water supply) and impact of the condition or health of the native
vegetation being retained within the site and in surrounding areas.
Any potential impacts on the root zone of vegetation, such as adding fill to adjust ground level, have been
considered with areas where earthworks are required to accommodate road levels included in the assessment (Figure
3).
Page 24 of 38
4.4 Addressing the Mitigation Hierarchy
When exercising a power or making a decision under Division 5 of the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017, the NVC
must have regard to the mitigation hierarchy. The NVC will also consider, with the aim to minimize, impacts on
biological diversity, soil, water and other natural resources, threatened species or ecological communities under the
EPBC Act or listed species under the NPW Act.
a) Avoidance – outline measures taken to avoid clearance of native vegetation
Areas of the highest density trees are of particularly high value with many having large hollows and providing
other habitat values such as food resources and roosting sites. Springwood has avoided the areas of highest
vegetation cover where practical and maintains over 70 ha of open space within the entire Springwood
Development site.
b) Minimisation – if clearance cannot be avoided, outline measures taken to minimise the extent, duration
and intensity of impacts of the clearance on biodiversity to the fullest possible extent (whether the impact
is direct, indirect or cumulative).
A Vegetation Management Plan and a Construction Environmental Management Plan will be developed so as to
guide the development of the site. These will include weed control and hygiene measures to ensure weeds are
not introduced/spread in the Project Area and entire Springwood Development site. Reserves have been
incorporated into the strategic design where remnant trees are present where possible in a bid to reduce native
vegetation clearance and SEB requirements while also improving the amenity value of the development.
EBS recommends that weed control be undertaken within the reserves that have been incorporated into the
strategic design in a bid to improve native vegetation and the amenity value of the development.
c) Rehabilitation or restoration – outline measures taken to rehabilitate ecosystems that have been
degraded, and to restore ecosystems that have been degraded, or destroyed by the impact of clearance
that cannot be avoided or further minimised, such as allowing for the re-establishment of the vegetation.
A preliminary stormwater treatment strategy for the site has been prepared, which considers the drainage for
the Springwood Development and includes elements such as macrophyte beds, shallow wetland ponds and
ecological sponges/reed beds. KBR provided input into the most suitable sites and has assisted in the initial
stormwater treatment planning. The wetland systems and ponds along the eastern section of the Springwood
Creek avoids the important reptile habitat areas, all of the remnant trees and will allow for development of
biologically productive riparian habitats in what is currently a weed infested gully.
EBS recommends that material (e.g. hollows, trunk sections) from cleared scattered trees be utilised as habitat
features in the Eucalyptus porosa Open Woodland to the southeast of the Project Area. Habitat features should
be placed within the woodland so as to resemble the natural distribution of fallen timber and hollows within the
woodland.
d) Offset – any adverse impact on native vegetation that cannot be avoided or further minimised should be
offset by the achievement of a significant environmental benefit that outweighs that impact.
The adverse impacts to native vegetation that cannot be avoided or minimised will be offset by Springwood
through the achievement of a SEB that outweighs the proposed impact (see Section 6).
Page 25 of 38
4.5 Principles of Clearance (Schedule 1, Native Vegetation Act
1991) The NVC will consider Principles 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d) when assigning a level of Risk under Regulation 16 of the Native
Vegetation Regulations. The NVC will consider all the Principles of clearance of the NV Act as relevant, when
considering an application referred under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.
The assessment of the proposed clearance against the Principles of Clearance is provided in Table 6.
Table 6. Assessment against the Principles of Clearance.
Principle of
clearance Considerations
Principle 1(a)
– it comprises
a high level of
diversity of
plant species
Relevant information
One native scattered tree species. Six introduced ground layer species. Two introduced scattered
woody weeds.
Native Plant Species Diversity Score – n/a.
Assessment against the principles
Not at Variance
Moderating factors that may be considered by the NVC
n/a
Principle 1(b)
– significance
as a habitat
for wildlife
Relevant information
A total of 15 native bird species were recorded using the scattered trees during the current fauna
assessment (Appendix 2). No threatened species were recorded during the current fauna
assessment.
A total of 38 uncommon, two State rare, three State endangered and one nationally endangered
fauna species may use the scattered trees (Appendix 3). The scattered trees provide habitat in a
heavily cleared area.
Fauna Habitat Score – 1.8 (all scattered trees).
Biodiversity Score – various (see Table 7).
Assessment against the principles
Seriously at Variance – all scattered trees.
Moderating factors that may be considered by the NVC
Is the clearance likely to:
• Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population;
• Reduce the area of occupancy of the species;
• Fragment an existing population into two or more populations;
• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species;
• Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent
that the species is likely to decline;
• Result in invasive species that are harmful to a threatened species becoming established in
the threatened species habitat; and
• Interfere with the recovery of the species.
Principle 1(c)
– plants of a
rare,
vulnerable or
Relevant information
No threatened species were recorded for the site or may have been present but undetectable at
the time of assessment.
Threatened Flora Score(s) – 0 (all scattered trees).
Page 26 of 38
endangered
species
Assessment against the principles
Not at Variance – all scattered trees.
Moderating factors that may be considered by the NVC
n/a
Principle 1(d)
– the
vegetation
comprises the
whole or
part of a
plant
community
that is Rare,
Vulnerable or
endangered
Relevant information
No threatened communities under the EPBC Act or threatened ecosystems under the DEW
Provisional list of threatened ecosystems are present within Stage 3 of the development.
Threatened Community Score – n/a
Assessment against the principles
Not at Variance – all scattered trees.
Moderating factors that may be considered by the NVC
n/a
Principle 1(e)
– it is
significant as
a remnant of
vegetation in
an area which
has been
extensively
cleared
Relevant information
Rosedale IBRA Association remnancy – 5%
Mount Lofty Ranges IBRA Subregion remnancy – 15%
Majority of trees established and of moderate to good vigour, with only Tree 11 still establishing
and two Over Mature trees (5 and 17) decreasing in vigour.
Total Biodiversity Score – 146.42
Assessment against the principles
Seriously at Variance – all scattered trees.
Moderating factors that may be considered by the NVC
• Is Eucalyptus porosa (Mallee Box) underrepresented within the IBRA Environmental
Association or IBRA Subregion.
Principle 1(f)
– it is growing
in, or in
association
with, a
wetland
environment
Relevant information
All the scattered trees are not associated with a wetland environment.
Assessment against the principles
Not at Variance – all scattered trees.
Moderating factors that may be considered by the NVC
n/a
Principle 1(g)
– it
contributes
significantly
to the
amenity of
the area in
which it is
growing or is
situated
Relevant information
Being on private property, the trees are not in an area frequented by the public.
No cultural or historical values of the trees have been identified.
Although the trees are being removed, the affected lots of the subdivision will retain amenity
value in the trees/woodland that are being retained.
Assessment against the principles
n/a
Moderating factors that may be considered by the NVC
n/a
Principles of Clearance (h-m) will be considered by comments provided by the local NRM Board or relevant Minister.
The Data Report should contain information on these principles where relevant and where sufficient information or
expertise is available.
Page 27 of 38
4.6 Risk assessment
The level of risk associated with the application
The level of risk associated with the application is Level 4 (Table 7). Although the risk assessment outcome of clearing
27 trees with a Total Biodiversity Score of 146.42 is Level 3, the risk assessment outcome was escalated to Level 4 as
the clearance is seriously at variance with principle 1(b) of the Principles of Clearance (wildlife habitat). Moderating
factors that the NVC may consider in order to update the outcome of the assessment against the principles are
outlined in Table 6. Any further clearance applications associated with the development will consider the level of risk
of this application and the determining factors.
Table 7. Summary of the level of risk associated with the application.
Total
clearance
No. of trees 27
Area (ha) 0
Total Biodiversity Score 146.42
Seriously at variance with principle
1(b), 1(c) or 1 (d) (b)
Risk assessment outcome Level 4
4.7 NVC guidelines
Other information that demonstrates that the clearance complies with any relevant NVC guidelines related to
the activity
n/a
Page 28 of 38
5. Clearance summary Scattered trees clearance summary table
The clearance summary table for the 27 scattered trees is provided in Table 8. The Scattered Tree Clearance Summary
Scoresheet is provided in Attachment 9.
Table 8. Scattered trees clearance summary.
Tree / Cluster
ID
Number of trees
Fauna Habitat score
Threatened flora score
Total Biodiversity
score
Loss factor
SEB Points required
SEB Payment Admin Fee
1 1 1.8 0 8.16 1 8.57 $5,706.19 $313.84
2 1 1.8 0 6.80 1 7.14 $4,754.09 $261.48
3 1 1.8 0 1.99 1 2.09 $1,393.80 $76.66
4 1 1.8 0 9.58 1 10.05 $6,697.77 $368.38
5 1 1.8 0 6.44 1 6.76 $4,505.49 $247.80
6 1 1.8 0 9.69 1 10.17 $6,777.59 $372.77
7 1 1.8 0 8.56 1 8.99 $5,986.26 $329.24
8 1 1.8 0 10.04 1 10.54 $7,020.87 $386.15
9 1 1.8 0 4.40 1 4.62 $3,075.63 $169.16
10 1 1.8 0 10.57 1 11.09 $7,390.53 $406.48
11 1 1.8 0 0.54 1 0.57 $377.09 $20.74
12 1 1.8 0 2.03 1 2.13 $1,421.86 $78.20
13 1 1.8 0 1.33 1 1.40 $933.28 $51.33
14 1 1.8 0 4.42 1 4.64 $3,092.87 $170.11
15 1 1.8 0 6.48 1 6.80 $4,531.70 $249.24
16 1 1.8 0 3.42 1 3.59 $2,393.50 $131.64
17 1 1.8 0 3.81 1 4.00 $2,667.06 $146.69
18 1 1.8 0 9.95 1 10.45 $6,962.43 $382.93
19 1 1.8 0 8.41 1 8.83 $5,881.48 $323.48
20 1 1.8 0 8.38 1 8.80 $5,860.68 $322.34
21 1 1.8 0 7.94 1 8.34 $5,554.43 $305.49
A 6 1.8 0 13.49 1 14.16 $9,434.95 $518.92
Total 27 146.42 153.75 $97,542.41 $5,364.83
Page 29 of 38
Totals summary table
The clearance summary totals table for the 27 scattered trees is provided in Table 9. The Economies of Scale and
Rainfall (mm) factors used in the SEB calculations are provided in Table 10.
Table 9. Scattered trees clearance summary totals.
Application Total
Biodiversity score
Total SEB points
required SEB Payment Admin Fee Total Payment
27 scattered
trees 146.42 153.75 $97,542.41 $5,364.83 $102,907.24
Table 10. Economies of Scale and Rainfall (mm) factors.
Economies of Scale Factor 0.5
Rainfall (mm) 481
Page 30 of 38
6. Significant Environmental
Benefit A SEB is required for approval to clear under Division 5 of the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017. The NVC must be
satisfied that as a result of the loss of vegetation from the clearance that an SEB will result in a positive impact on the
environment that is over and above the negative impact of the clearance.
ACHIEVING AN SEB
Indicate how the SEB will be achieved by ticking the appropriate box and providing the associated information:
Establish a new SEB Area on land owned by the proponent. Provide information below.
Use SEB Credit that the proponent has established. Provide the SEB Credit Ref. No. ___________
Apply to have SEB Credit assigned from another person or body. The application form needs to be submitted
with this Data Report.
Apply to have an SEB to be delivered by a Third Party. The application form needs to be submitted with this Data
Report.
Pay into the Native Vegetation Fund. Provide details below.
PAYMENT SEB
Springwood proposes to achieve the SEB by paying into the Native Vegetation Fund. The total SEB payment required
for the clearance of clearance of 27 scattered trees with a Total Biodiversity Score of 146.42 is $102,907.24, which
includes and administration fee of $5,364.83 (Table 9).
Page 31 of 38
7. References Cutten JL, Hodder MW (2002) Scattered tree clearance assessment in South Australia: streamlining, guidelines for
assessment and rural industry extension. Biodiversity Assessment Services, Department of Water, Land and
Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.
Department for Environment and Water (DEW) (2020) NatureMaps. Available at:
http://data.environment.as.gov.au/NatureMaps/Pages/default.aspx [Accessed 10 August 2020].
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) (2020) Protected Matters Search Tool. Available at:
https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protected-matters-search-tool [Accessed 10 August 2020].
EBS Ecology (EBS) (2019) Springwood Flora and Fauna Assessment March 2019. Report to Arcadian Property. EBS
Ecology, Adelaide.
Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd (KBR) (2010) Gawler East Development Plan Amendment, Gawler East Ecological
Survey. Report to Delfin Lend Lease Pty Ltd. Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd, Adelaide.
Native Vegetation Council (NVC) (2020) Scattered Tree Assessment Manual July 2020. Native Vegetation Council,
Adelaide. Available at: https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/topics/native-vegetation/clearing/vegetation-
assessments.
Page 32 of 38
8. Appendices and attachments
Appendices
Appendix 1. Scattered tree photos.
Appendix 2. Fauna observed during the native vegetation clearance assessment.
Appendix 3. Scattered tree using fauna identified from reliable BSBSA records within 5 km of the Project Area
(NatureMaps 2020) and the list of scattered trees using fauna in the Scattered Tree Assessment Manual (NVC 2020).
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Springwood Land Tenure Plan
Attachment 2 – Gawler East Development Plan Amendment, Gawler East Ecological Survey (KBR 2010).
Attachment 3 – Springwood Flora and Fauna Assessment March 2019 (EBS 2019).
Attachment 4 – Springwood Village Staging Plan.
Attachment 5 – Springwood Tree Retention Plan.
Attachment 6 – Springwood Village 3 Design Plans.
Attachment 7 – Development Approval 490/D026/19 and 960/D025/19.
Attachment 8 – Scattered Tree Assessment Scoresheet.
Attachment 9 – Scattered Tree Clearance Summary Scoresheet.
Page 33 of 38
Appendix 1. Scattered tree photos.
Tree 1 Tree 2
Tree 3 Tree 4
Tree 5 Tree 6
Tree 7 Tree 8
Page 34 of 38
Tree 9 Tree 10
Tree 11 Tree 12
Tree 13 Tree 14
Tree 15 Tree 16
Page 35 of 38
Tree 17 Tree 18
Tree 19 Tree 20
Tree 21 Clump A
Page 36 of 38
Appendix 2. Fauna observed during the native vegetation clearance assessment.
Scientific name Common name NPW Act EPBC Act Introduced
Anthochaera carunculata woodwardi Red Wattlebird (MLR, AP, YP, EP, far west, Yellabinna)
Cacatua galerita Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced Cuckooshrike
Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrikethrush
Corvus coronoides Australian Raven
Dacelo novaeguineae Laughing Kookaburra
Eolophus roseicapilla Galah
Falco berigora Brown Falcon
Glossopsitta concinna Musk Lorikeet
Gymnorhina tibicen Australian Magpie
Macropus fuliginosus Western Grey Kangaroo
Pardalotus striatus Striated Pardalote
Passer domesticus domesticus House Sparrow *
Platycercus elegans Crimson Rosella
Platycercus elegans fleurieuensis Adelaide Rosella (southern MLR)
Ptilotula ornata Yellow-plumed Honeyeater
Rhipidura leucophrys leucophrys Willie Wagtail
Sturnus vulgaris vulgaris Common Starling *
NPW Act: E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, R = Rare
EPBC Act: Ex = Extinct, CR = Critically endangered, EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable
Subspecies distributions: MLR = Mount Lofty Ranges, AP = Adelaide Plains, YP = Yorke Peninsula, EP = Eyre Peninsula
Introduced: * = Introduced
Page 37 of 38
Appendix 3. Scattered tree using fauna identified from reliable BSBSA records within 5 km of the Project Area
(NatureMaps 2020) and the list of scattered trees using fauna in the Scattered Tree Assessment Manual (NVC 2020).
Scientific name Common name NPW Act EPBC Act MLR Resource
use Habitat / status
AVES Birds
Aegotheles cristatus Australian Owlet-nightjar RA H w
Milvus migrans Black Kite RA P s
Melithreptus gularis Black-chinned Honeyeater V CR F w
Climacteris picumnus Brown Treecreeper VU P, H w
Melithreptus brevirostris Brown-headed Honeyeater NT F w
Stagonopleura guttata Diamond Firetail V VU P, N w
Artamus cyanopterus Dusky Woodswallow RA P w
Tyto alba Eastern Barn Owl RA P, N r
Neophema elegans Elegant Parrot R VU P, N w
Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant RA P s
Ardea modest Great Egret VU P s
Chrysococcyx basalis Horsfield's Bronze Cuckoo NT P s
Hieraaetus morphnoides Little Eagle EN P w
Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet E CR F, H w/s
Anas superciliosa Pacific Black Duck RA H s
Cacomantis pallidus Pallid Cuckoo RA P s
Geopelia placida Peaceful Dove VU P w
Malacorhynchus membranaceus Pink-eared Duck RA H s
Glossopsitta porphyrocephala Purple-crowned Lorikeet NT F, P, H w/s
Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater VU P s
Petroica goodenovii Red-capped Robin RA P w
Psephotus haematonotus Red-rumped Parrot NT P, H w/r
Megalurus mathewsi Rufous Songlark VU P s
Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler NT P, F w/s
Todiramphus sanctus Sacred Kingfisher NT P, H w
Zosterops lateralis Silvereye NT P, F w/s
Aphelocephala leucopsis Southern Whiteface VU P, H w
Circus assimilis Spotted Harrier RA P, N w/s
Pardalotus punctatus Spotted Pardalote NT P, F w/s
Pardalotus punctatus Spotted Pardalote NT P, F w
Petrochelidon nigricans Tree Martin NT P, H w/s
Haliastur sphenurus Whistling Kite VU P, N w
Melithreptus lunatus White-naped Honeyeater NT P, F w
Ardea pacifica White-necked Heron VU P, N s
Lalage tricolor White-winged Triller RA P, F s
Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail NT P, F, N w/r
Acanthiza nana Yellow Thornbill NT P, F w
Acanthiza chrysorrhoa Yellow-rumped Thornbill NT P, N w/r
MAMMALIA Mammals
Common Brushtail Possum R H, F r
Grey-headed Flying-fox R VU F
Page 38 of 38
NPW Act: E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, R = Rare
EPBC Act: Ex = Extinct, CR = Critically endangered, EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable
MLR: LC = Least Concern (Common), NT = Near Threatened (Uncommon), RA = Rare, VU = Vulnerable, EN = Endangered,
CR = Critically Endangered
Resource use: P = perching/roosting, N = nesting, H = using hollow for nesting/roosting, F = feeding Habitat/status: s = seasonal (includes waterbirds using trees near seasonal wetlands, seasonal and nomadic species), w = woodland birds that occasionally use adjacent scattered trees, r=species that can reside in scattered trees.